wow. that was really well done.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. So, let me get this straight, by pointing out loose similarities between two actions that you (the creator) deem wrong, nobody is allowed to call the later instance wrong? So, forgetting about the spread of Communism (there's no point in even trying to convince the creator of this that Communism is a bad thing based on the examples they give), we are to assume that Terrorism against the US is okay because funding the Contras was wrong? Trying to counter Iran, who had just previously engaged in kidnappings of Americans a few years prior and had declared the United States a sworn enemy was wrong because the US chose to enlist Saddam to do it?

Justifying a "wrong" by pointing to another "wrong" is never a strong argument.

No, you've got it backwards. They're pointing out that the US is doing the same wrong things that it is accusing other people of doing.

No, they have it backwards. They are pointing to something that America did nearly two decades ago and are trying to say that it is one and the same as the acts carried out by Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists without in any way trying to point out the glaring differences in them. And by doing so, they are trying to put America on the same moral and ethical level as these terrorists.

This is beyond the typical, liberal, anti-Americanism that is the status-quo. This is sickening.

Let's see. The Islamic Terrorists have this twisted notion that they're defending themselves from encroaching Western devils. The US had this twisted notion that it was defending itself from the godless Communist heathens. What, exactly, is the difference?

Are you honestly putting America on the same moral ground as Islamofascist Terrorists?

Islamofascist? Can you explain what that means?

Quote:
his is beyond the typical, liberal, anti-Americanism that is the status-quo. This is sickening.

Brad, by resorting to this "typical, liberal, anti-Americanism" canard, you really undermine any argument you might want to make.

It reminds me of a radio interview I heard a few weeks back about a new conservative film festival in Texas where one of the principals uttered something about liberals and how "we want to show movies by 'real Americans' ". Sooooo, let me get this straight: George McGovern, the ultimate liberal, decorated WW2 B-24 pilot -- who risked his life so that we could engage in unfettered name-calling without getting thrown into jail -- isn't a "Real" American. In fact, he is probably *Anti* American!! How typical!

Y'know, he is probably too nice a guy to take offense.

In those particular instances, yes. The US had the same kneejerk reaction to Communism as the Islamic terrorists have to Western "incursion". Neither one was without basis, but neither one examined any circumstances surrounding, well, pretty much anything. Excepting China, the one Communist place the US definitely should have stayed adversarial to.

Although I'm gonna have to agree with genixia on the "Islamofascist" thing.

The term Islamofascists refers to those who claim to be Muslims but are considered by their opponents as fascists with Islamic background, e.g. those often called Islamic extremists or fundamentalists in the West.

Although, looking more into it, I see that some people (on both sides of the political spectrum) misinterpret this term to draw a direct connection between Islam and Fascism, which is not the case and was not intended by my use of the word. So, to avoid being misunderstood on that, I don't plan on using that term anymore (I also found that some Muslims take offense to it).

Well, the intent of the charming video is clearly to put down America. No question about that. So I standby calling it Anti-American. In calling it "typically liberal," I guess that was going too far because there are plenty of people who are liberal, but in fact only seem to hate part of America , so lumping all liberals into the "Anti-American" crowd went too far in the same way as the Islamofascist term, but in this usuage I clearly meant it (and since retract it).

Islamofascist referred to a specific movement and not to Islam as a whole. My comment towards liberals was purely an emotional reaction based on some of Michael Moore's recent and brilliant quotes and writings that have sent me through the roof. Telling a group of Canadians that the dumbest Canadian is smarter than the smartest American (and the same thing to a U.K. crowd) or saying that America deserved 9/11 is inexcusable. And this "well done" video is clearly from the same mindset.

EDIT: Fixed a typo before db jumps in.

Quote:
I would certainly never view promoting freedom and democracy as a "knee jerk" reaction. Communism was a serious threat to the world. And maybe I've missed a few New York Times editorials lately, but I was never under the impression that the goal of destroying an entire society and its people was on par with taking covert and illegal activities to protect the freedom and liberty of an entire continent.

I have to say that I have heard so much about "Freedom and Democracy" lately that it has become almost a cliche, especially when you get the sense that it's some mutation of Big Brother that is chanting "Freedom and Democracy! Freedom and Democracy!" Beware slogans.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom and democracy, the kind you find in the dictionary, but I fear that the definitions get a bit distorted in the hands of jingoist political movements.

In no way do I want to diminish the positive contributions of my Dad, my uncles, my Mother, my cousins and others in helping keep the world safe from several humorless, murderous "isms", but I have to look at some things and ask "What if?

What might the outcome have been if we (meaning the US of A):

Had decided not to step into the Indochinese shoes of the French but had actually followed FDR's professed post-war intent and had engaged Ho Chi Minh as a self-professed nationalist?

Decided that the Bay of Pigs might not be such a smart idea?

Decided that overthrowing Jacobo Arbenz was unethical?

Declined to kill Salvador Allende?

Concluded that the Contras were a bunch of murderous thugs of our own creation?

...and I think there are a few more examples that the attentive listener can add to this list.

So, if we stood back a little in some of these cases, would we all be living under the jackboot of Joe Stalin Junior now....or would the Statue of Liberty's torch be glowing maybe just a little bit brighter at this point?

While in Ireland this summer I bought a book called "Why do People Hate America?" by Ziauddin Sardar and Merrill Davies, despite the relative cost of books abroad, because:

a) Like most Americans, I genuinely wondered why; I am, and most of those I know are, pretty nice folks...and

b)This may have been my 10th or 11th extended stay abroad, in places from east and south Africa to Iceland, and I'd never before encountered the level of Anti-American feeling rampant this summer, even in a country with which we usually have pretty close ties.

c)After seeing what was in the daily press in the UK and Ireland and more importantly, realizing what was NOT in ours, I wasn't sure I could get the book at all in the US. This was unfounded; it's available on Amazon.

Nothing I found in it was factually incorrect when I researched it, and it is not a rant; it's pretty well reasoned. When you complete it, however, you have no difficulty answering the question. Whether or not you agree with its thesis, it should be incumbent upon all of us to understand how we're viewed in the rest of the world. It is diametrically opposed to what we're taught in school America is supposed to be about. Even though I came of age in the 60's and had opposed Viet Nam, there was much there I had either been unaware of or had thought isolated instances. The mismatch between what most Americans think we're about and what our government has been up to, which is perceived as hypocrisy, rather than apathetic ignorance on our parts, is one of the principal reasons we're hated. I'd recommend the book as a generally braodening perspective.

> Well, the intent of the charming video is clearly to put down America. No question about that. So I standby calling it Anti-American.

No, the intent of the video is to point out America's hypocricy. I mean who wants to be a hyopcrite? Alas, as much as I don't want to be a hypocrite, I am likely going to be angry at the person who points it out, because it is painful. I might use words like ignorant or think they hate me, and that anger would be understandable if I had never thought of myself as a hyopcrite before. I would hope though, that after the initial burst of anger, I might start to see that in fact, yes, I have been wrong and I have been blind to my own failings, and take some effort to fix them instead of merely being angry. But who knows.

It is arguable whether this is the richest nation; It depends what you use as your benchmark.

I certainly don't disagree with the rest of the point.

kayakjazz, your perspective is interesting, yet I don't see how winning a popularity contest with the world can trump the security interests that we have as a nation. Sure, it'd be "nice" to have the world love us. It'd also be "nice" if foreign political leaders didn't cash in on this view of the USA to win support amoung voters. And while looking at the actions of the USA around the world during the last half century may give the impression that our policies are hypocritical, it is only because they lack the proper perspective. A read of that book would perhaps detail how little perspective there is to those that "Hate" America.

For some reason, this instantly reminded me of the MadTV skit "The Reading Caboose." Did anyone else have this pop into their mind?

For those who haven't seen this, it is a parody of a children's reading show on public television. Except that the adults hosting the show continuously try to spread their politics to the children, or else teach them various conspiracy theories. Two I remember in particular are "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" and "the CIA killed Marilyn Monroe, here are the autopsy photos" -- just to pick both a conspiracy of the left and a conspiracy of the right, though the adults are depicted more as "flower children" stereotypes in general.

Well, how about "the intend of the charming video is clearly to put down America by calling America a hypocrite." And to call this video anything less than ignorant wouldn't be right. I'm sorry it's a mean word. I wish I didn't have to use it.

There is no argument that the USA and Islamic Terrorists (or Saddam) are morally equal. This is so obvious, I really don't know where to begin in explaining it, and I hope I don't really have to, but: Terrorists aiming to destroy Western civilization and all infidels because they oppose Western involvement in the Middle East and Western culture as a whole does not hold the same weight as a government aiming to stop the spread of fascism and communism for the sake of freedom for those people and the greater good of the world. I am not saying that the USA is without blunders throughout the Cold War, but I'm not aware of any war yet that has been flawless. Just because the terrorists "think" they are as right as we do, doesn't not mean that the two are morally equal. I'm sure the Nazis working at death camps "thought" they were morally justified too. But hopefully, anyone reading this has the ability to see that Nazis and Islamic Terrorists are evil no matter how "right" they they think they are. And even the people out there that think that Communism is a neat idea (it just hasn't been done right yet), can see that America engaging in the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism and promote Democracy is a far more just cause than the two previous examples. I could go on, and I'm sure I'll be prompted to.

So, since the USA, with its involvement with the Contras (or whatever part of the video caught your fancy), is still more just in its cause, even if you disagree with the actions, than Islamic Terrorist who seek to kill all infidels, whether they be French, American or Canadian, until each and every one has been killed, the only way one can try to equate the USA and terrorists is to draw similarities between the actions of those terrorists and the Contras that the USA supported. (Sorry for the long winded sentence there.) This is a very weak argument.

If drawing loose similarities between actions, without allowing for perspective or moral intent, was enough to point out hypocrisy, I could make the following arguments:

• Great Britain was a hypocrite for bombing Germany when they, at the same time, considered Germany's bombing of Britain as an aggressive act. (Don't allow for the fact that Germany was intent on conquering all of Europe and parts of Africa or any of the other, countless things about WWII Germany).
  
• A police officer would be a hypocrite for shooting a man when he, in fact, considers shooting a person to be crime. (Don't allow for the fact that the man shot by the officer was in the act of attacking an innocent child with a knife.)
  

I agree that it is human nature to take attacks toward an institution that we support (whether it be our church, government, um... local ACLU chapter, etc) personally, and it's worth pointing out that these criticisms are not intended to be personal.

Yet, it's hard not to take personally criticisms of my government when I see it as acting to ensure the security of myself, my family, my community and my nation. Of course, the people making those attacks see my government as engaging in the exact opposite, so they might be surprised when it is taken personally as an emotional reaction.

You're essentially arguing that the ends justify the means, and I can't buy into that philosophy.

No, I intentially pointed out that, even if you disagree with the actions and consider them wrong, that still does not equate them to the terrorism directed at us.

Nor, do I think, the video (which, for the record, I thought was ... enh ... okay) intends to equate anything more than actions. But actions are important.